Planning » Application Comments

10/16/01241
|
Development of facilities to enable the testing of a new technology based on a pyrothermic conversion process utilising SRF (solid recovered fuel) and erection of external 20 metre high chimney stack for a temporary period of 18 months.
|
Unit 7, Northedge Business Park, Alfreton Road, Derby, DE21 4BN

Please refer to the Related Documents section to view all consultee comments for this application.

Search Filters

Built Environment Section, Communities and Place

Comment Date:
Thu 17 Nov 2016

Conservation Consultation

These comments are made in the light of the Planning (Listed buildings and conservation areas) Act 1990, and the relevant National and Local Planning Policies and Guidance (including the National Planning Policy Framework, Historic England guidance, the relevant Local Plan Review January 2006 saved policies and emerging core strategy).

This proposal is for temporary permission, for 18 months, for a 20m chimney stack to enable the testing of a new technology based on pyrothermic conversion process utilising RDF.

It is located just outside the Derwent Valley World Heritage Site (DVMWHS) within it's buffer zone (which is in place to protect the setting of the DVMWHS - although the setting could extend further). There are a number of highly graded industrial listed buildings nearby and it is likely their setting will be affected slightly.

In terms of the effect on the DVMWHS and setting of listed buildings the site is experienced to the west along the Heritage Way and network of photographs. I wondered whether the 1-1.2m width chimney could be located to the north-east corner of the building instead of the north-west? or have trees planted to part hide it from view? These suggestions would, in my view, limit the impact of it.

I am concerned that this chimney will have a slight negative impact on the heritage assets and it would be preferable not to have it at all. However as this is a tall slender element this may not be over dominant. As this is a temporary development for 18 months only and is not to be extended I suggest accepting it (subject to looking at changing its location) on this basis.

Recommendation: - Suggest exploration of amendment in line with the above comments. Conservation Officer (CO)

Comment Date:
Wed 22 Feb 2017

These comments are made in the light of the Planning (Listed buildings and conservation areas) Act 1990, and the relevant National and Local Planning Policies and Guidance (including the National Planning Policy Framework, Historic England guidance, the relevant Local Plan Review January 2006 (saved policies) and the adopted Derby City Local Plan ? Part 1 Core Strategy.

The stack is proposed to be slightly moved, and is a very slight improvement, but is not located where I suggested to the north ?east corner which would be better. This proposal is within the immediate setting (buffer zone) of the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site, which is of International Importance.

At pre-application stage I referred the agent, of these proposals, to the result of a recent Public Inquiry on North Avenue, which was mainly in the buffer zone and partially within the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site itself ? which was dismissed by a Planning Inspector. Within this Public Inquiry it went through, using the ICOMOS guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments (2011), the Heritage Impact assessment of the proposal on the significance of the DVMWHS. This is what I have done when looking at the impact of this proposal. I note that although a visual assessment has been done the applicant has not used this impact assessment tool.

In my view - due to the value of the heritage asset, which is very high, the scale and severity of the change proposed to its significance (the WHS or its setting) is multiplied. As this heritage asset is very high value and the impact, in my view, of a negligible change on historic landscape attributes I have assessed this as having a slight significance of effect or overall impact.

Recommendation: - To diminish further the impact this proposal I would suggest that the applicants moves the chimney further eastwards into the site and looks at further screening, within the site where they have control, ? as previously suggested. I would be happy to discuss this further with you and the applicant.

Conservation Officer (CO)

Comment Date:
Fri 30 Jun 2017

Conservation Consultation

These comments are made in the light of the Planning (Listed buildings and conservation areas) Act 1990, and the relevant National and Local Planning Policies and Guidance (including the National Planning Policy Framework, Historic England guidance, the Derby City Local Plan Part 1 (2017), the saved policies in the Local Plan Review (January 2006) and other relevant guidance.

I note the new heritage assessment. However I would suggest the applicant is given the opportunity to update the new assessment to mention and assess the 'magnitude of impact' and the 'significance of effect' of the proposal on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site (using UNESCO guidance - 'Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties 2011 ). This seems to be missing. This guidance was used at a recent planning inquiry at North Avenue, Darley Abbey and the process and rationale was accepted by the Planning Inspector.

Conservation Officer (CO)

Highways - Land Drainage, Communities and Place

Comment Date:
Wed 09 Nov 2016

The proposals are for the temporary consent for an industrial process in an existing industrial building. In flood risk terms, this represents no increase in vulnerability of the premises. The building which will contain the industrial trial will continue to be classified as 'Less Vulnerable? and the site is identified in the FRA to be within Flood Zone 2. The FRA reported that the drainage provision and finished flood levels have already been set for the building in accordance with a previous planning consent, with the current proposals effectively being a temporary change of industrial function.

It appears that the [proposals will not significantly alter the pattern of occupation or the structural or drainage configuration of this existing building.

As such, I have no objections to the proposals, based on the information submitted, as they will not materially increase flood risk in any way.

However, as an advisory note, it is recommended that consideration is given by the applicant to the contamination of possible flood waters by this industrial process and the means by which the risk of pollution of receiving water can be mitigated (e.g. elevated storage of contaminants and machinery, training and the use of flood warnings to trigger a flood action plan).

Development Control Archaeologist, Derbyshire County Council

Comment Date:
Mon 27 Feb 2017

Thank you for consulting on the above planning application.

The proposal site is located peripherally within a site on the Derbyshire Historic Environment Record relating to ridge and furrow in the field to the north, although this asset will not be impacted by the current proposals. The site is some 670m north of the former Draka Cables (Eagle Park) site where Roman archaeology was recently encountered during redevelopment, and 770m north of the boundary of the City Council?s Archaeological Alert Area relating to the Roman fort and civil settlement at Little Chester.

It seems very unlikely that the Roman activity associated with Little Chester extends this far north, or that the Ryknield Street Roman road crosses the site (the HER places it 300m to the east, although this is a conjectural alignment).

I also note that the proposed ground impacts are very modest and are confined to the relatively limited site of the proposed chimney.

I therefore advise that an archaeological response is not justified under the policies at NPPF chapter 12.

Comment Date:
Mon 19 Jun 2017

Development of facilities to enable the testing of a new technology based on a pyrothermic conversion process utilising SDF (solid recovered fuel) and erection of external 20 metre height chimney stack for a temporary period of 18 months.

Thank you for consulting on the above planning application.

I would refer you to our previous comments (email of 27 02 2017) on this application. I would re-iterate our advice of that date that the proposal is unlikely to have any archaeological impact and that no further action in this area is required.

The advice of the Conservation Officer for Derby City should be sought in relation to the Heritage Setting Assessment which has been prepared however.

Highways - Development Control, Communities and Place

Comment Date:
Mon 24 Oct 2016

Derby City Council Planning Application Consultation

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015

Proposal: Development of facilities to enable the testing of a new technology based on a pyrothermic conversion process utilising RDF for a temporary period of 18 months.

Highway Authority Comments:

The proposals have been the subject of pre-application discussions (ref DER/16/00033/EN).

In highway terms, the proposals are very much for an industrial use (B2); which is in keeping with the general location of the site.

Further, the proposals are of a temporary nature, from the information provided at application (and pre-application) stage, the Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposals will not have a material effect upon the adjacent highway network.

Recommendation:

The Highway Authority has No Objection to the proposals.

HDC CT 241016

Comment Date:
Tue 07 Feb 2017

Derby City Council Planning Application Consultation

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015

Proposal: Development of facilities to enable the testing of a new technology based on a pyrothermic conversion process utilising RDF for a temporary period of 18 months.

Highway Authority Comments:

The proposals are a re-consultation of the above application.

In highway terms, there are no material changes as the changes which appear to have been made are internal within the site.

In highway terms, the proposals are very much for an industrial use (B2); which is in keeping with the general location of the site; with trip generation being of a similar profile to that which would be expected for a B2 use.

Further, the proposals are of a temporary nature. From the information provided at application (and pre-application) stage, the Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposals will not have a material effect upon the adjacent highway network.

Recommendation:

The Highway Authority response remains one of No Objection to the proposals.